It would be an interesting exercise to consider the years that are a perfect square n^2 and then try to give some sort of attempt at dividing history into n segments of n years, trying to find a common theme for each segment.
> The sum of the cube of gap of primes up to 2017 is a prime number. That is (3-2)^3 + (5-3)^3 + (7-5)^3 + (11-7)^3 + ... + (2017-2011)^3 is a prime number.
For the non-mathematically inclined, how do mathematicians come up with these? Are these just observations that they happened to witness, or are there underlying theoretical properties that allow one to derive this claim?
There has been a great amount of research to find ways to check if a number of prime or not in polynomial time[1]. Many of such _facts_ are a observations from this conquest. Number theory reveals fascinating facts about spacing in prime numbers determining properties within a range. Sometimes such results emerge from there.
What I like to do to measure the "mathematical interestingness" of a number, is check how many times it appears in OEIS. A database of sequences of numbers found in mathematical research. 2017 appeared in 453 sequences. For comparison; 2016 appears 833 sequences, and 2018 appears in 113.
* (loop for i from 1 to 15 do
(loop for i2 from i to 15 do
(loop for i3 from i2 to 15 do
(loop for i4 from i3 to 15 do
(loop for i5 from i4 to 15 do
(if (= (+ (* i i i) (* i2 i2 i2) (* i3 i3 i3) (* i4 i4 i4) (* i5 i5 i5)) 2017)
(print (list i i2 i3 i4 i5))))))))
[+] [-] williamstein|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ComodoHacker|9 years ago|reply
This gives no results in SageMath...
[+] [-] AccordionGuy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] joeax|9 years ago|reply
BTW I'm really looking forward to the next perfect square year: 2025 (45^2). It last happened in 1936, and won't happen again until 2116.
[+] [-] ClashTheBunny|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aisofteng|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kondbg|9 years ago|reply
For the non-mathematically inclined, how do mathematicians come up with these? Are these just observations that they happened to witness, or are there underlying theoretical properties that allow one to derive this claim?
[+] [-] indexerror|9 years ago|reply
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primality_test
[+] [-] JshWright|9 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6jMU-AwX34
(Some repeats, but plenty of non-prime facts as well (plus Matt's excellent dry humor))
[+] [-] taneq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kahrkunne|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Houshalter|9 years ago|reply
http://oeis.org/search?q=seq%3A2016&sort=&language=english&g...
[+] [-] olalonde|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjwei|9 years ago|reply
IMHO, being a prime number might give 2017 some advantages, and 2017 might be a slightly more interesting than most of prime numbers.
[+] [-] rosstex|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tpogge|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] duomono4|9 years ago|reply
(1 2 2 10 10) (1 2 4 6 12) (2 4 6 9 10) NIL
[+] [-] jmokland|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peter303|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leo424y|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tpogge|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] warent|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otalp|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ar-Curunir|9 years ago|reply